The lobby in question, called Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), appears to possess the power, influence and money not only to bring private prosecutions against anybody to whom they take a disliking, but also to force the judicial arm of the state to change the very nature of the law itself.

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 – a law introduced by Blair’s government to silence opposition to their immigration plan – is what Alison is deemed to have fallen foul of. Specifically, she is charged with five counts of sending communications which are grossly offensive.

Communications Act 2003, Section 127

Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

Yet one must remember that Holocaust revisionism is not a crime in the United Kingdom. Even if Ms Chabloz had stood at Speaker’s Corner on a Sunday morning singing these songs, she would not have been in breach of the law. This is why this case is so baffling, especially considering the CPS initially agreed that this was not a crime.

It begs the question, who really controls the British Justice System? Is it those appointed to the task by our elected representatives, or is it the influential lobbies and special interest groups?

Even more ridiculous are some of the court exchanges that have appeared in the newspapers since the latest instalment of this charade began.

AC: ‘It is concerning that where I live, my people I love, my race, that we will become an ethnic minority’

QC: ‘The views you have expressed are antisemitic and racist’

QC: ‘You said of the white race, “it breaks my heart to see that disappearing.” That’s nothing more than racism’

One wonders if the same Stasi-esque prosecutor would cry racism had somebody expressed their sadness at the disappearance of the black races?

These are very dark times for England. It appears that, if this case goes against Ms Chabloz, the CAA will have effectively outlawed Holocaust revisionism as similar lobby groups have managed to do in continental Europe.

Similarly, a victory for the CAA will represent the final death knell for free speech in England. If they succeed, a legal precedent will have been set stipulating that holding the desire to prevent the White race from extinction, or even voicing disquiet about this fact, are ‘hate crimes’.

Perhaps the only positive point to be found in a guilty verdict would be Alison’s martyrdom for the cause of Free Speech. For years to come, people will remember her and those like her who have been imprisoned for political opinions at the behest of alien special interest groups.

If found guilty, Ms Chabloz could face up to six months in prison. The trial continues.